if we are going to see more city battlegrounds, for once, i would like to see destructable environments and buildings with more than 2 floors open. i get tired of 6 months down the road knowing exactly where everyone is sniping from. imagine like a five story building at the end of a street with all windows open plus the roof. im hoping bf3 is like this.

BFBC2 let you open peep holes in the structures you were in and most buildings had access to the roof...of course because virtually everything was destructable, you'd be wise not to stay in the same place anyway... BF3 should allow you to do the same.

Yep. I've always played the CoD campaign modes. The only one I have left to beat is W@W and the only reason I havn't beaten it is cuz it keeps glitching on this one mission and will never end because my squad gets stuck on something and doesn't follow me in the subway

They have a full 9, and 13 minute single player video up on GT - no multiplayer, but it looks just like the last couple of COD games, so there's really little that will likely shock people. I don't see any legitimate innovations in the single player, so I doubt any for multiplayer.

They have a full 9, and 13 minute single player video up on GT - no multiplayer, but it looks just like the last couple of COD games, so there's really little that will likely shock people. I don't see any legitimate innovations in the single player, so I doubt any for multiplayer.

They have a full 9, and 13 minute single player video up on GT - no multiplayer, but it looks just like the last couple of COD games, so there's really little that will likely shock people. I don't see any legitimate innovations in the single player, so I doubt any for multiplayer.

I agree, the BF videos are far more impressive than COD. But for whatever reason I'm still more excited about COD. I like BFBC2, but I still prefer the controls of COD. It just feels smoother. I can't walk sideways/backwards as easily as I can in COD. I find myself missing staircases or even doors when I try to move quickly in BF. If they fix the controls and make them smoother, I'll be all over BF3.

I liken it to iOS vs Android, where iOS is CODand Android is BF. I've got a Droid X and an iPad, so I have experience with both. Android arguably does more, is more capable than iOS, and has features I can't give up, but iOS is smoother, and just plain works.

I like BFBC2, but I still prefer the controls of COD. It just feels smoother. I can't walk sideways/backwards as easily as I can in COD. I find myself missing staircases or even doors when I try to move quickly in BF. If they fix the controls and make them smoother, I'll be all over BF3.

The controls are that way in BFBC2 because it is physically impossible for a human to strafe-run in circles the way they do it in most video games. It makes your forward speed 100% side stepping is slower, strafing is slower than sprinting, etc. It isn't any worse/better, just a twist to the gameplay that i guess you could argue is more authentic, but it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Many other FPS franchises use a similar way of limiting movement speed in certain directions. Can you run the same speed forward and backwards in real life?

The controls are that way in BFBC2 because it is physically impossible for a human to strafe-run in circles the way they do it in most video games. It makes your forward speed 100% side stepping is slower, strafing is slower than sprinting, etc. It isn't any worse/better, just a twist to the gameplay that i guess you could argue is more authentic, but it isn't broken and doesn't need fixing. Many other FPS franchises use a similar way of limiting movement speed in certain directions. Can you run the same speed forward and backwards in real life?

I get that and I'm not arguing that COD is objectively a better game than BF but I don't play these games for their authenticity or realism, and my personal preference is for the controls/smoothness of COD. Is COD more cartooney/arcadey and less, ahem, authentic/realistic? Sure. I just prefer smoothness. I remember when BF came out a lot of the complaints were centered around a 'marshmallow' feeling to the controls. Everything just feels slightly off. I couldn't play at the default sensitivity...I had to up it drastically to make it somewhat comfortable.

Regarding the bolded part above. You can't do that in COD either. You can't sprint sideways or backwards. If you can, I've been missing out. If anything, the fact that unlimited sprinting exists in BF is less realistic when lugging around an M60.

I will say that after playing BF for awhile and then picking up BLOPS again, I REALLY like dedicated servers. I wanted to throw my controller through the TV the other night at some of the lag/host issues with BLOPS.

I get that and I'm not arguing that COD is objectively a better game than BF but I don't play these games for their authenticity or realism, and my personal preference is for the controls/smoothness of COD. Is COD more cartooney/arcadey and less, ahem, authentic/realistic? Sure. I just prefer smoothness. I remember when BF came out a lot of the complaints were centered around a 'marshmallow' feeling to the controls. Everything just feels slightly off. I couldn't play at the default sensitivity...I had to up it drastically to make it somewhat comfortable.

Regarding the bolded part above. You can't do that in COD either. You can't sprint sideways or backwards. If you can, I've been missing out. If anything, the fact that unlimited sprinting exists in BF is less realistic when lugging around an M60.

I will say that after playing BF for awhile and then picking up BLOPS again, I REALLY like dedicated servers. I wanted to throw my controller through the TV the other night at some of the lag/host issues with BLOPS.

The major confusion is that Bad Company 2 IS battlefield. This in fact, is not true. The Bad Company games have become popular, but Battlefield 2 was way more realistic. It's truely the mix between ArmA and COD. Bad Company was a more console and combat oriented game.

There is no unlimited sprint in Battlefield 2, and I bet it won't be there in Battlefield 3. Battlefield has always been known for open maps with open ended game types, and versatility with vehicles and such.

Please don't think Bad Company 2 is Battlefield.

Attention! I shoot basketball from the front row. I spend hundreds of dollars for expensive tickets. I smuggle in long, expensive cameras and lenses, and security doesn't even bat an eye. That's right. I'm special. All because I want to sell you a 50mm 1.8 lens so you can be just as cool. Have a good day.

And not to start anything....but if people are already tired of Black Ops, what makes you think you won't be tired of MW3? There has been nothing changed...it's the same game with updated storylines (that ironically resemble the end of MW2) and the same old graphics.

I'm frankly surprised people haven't been more critical.

Attention! I shoot basketball from the front row. I spend hundreds of dollars for expensive tickets. I smuggle in long, expensive cameras and lenses, and security doesn't even bat an eye. That's right. I'm special. All because I want to sell you a 50mm 1.8 lens so you can be just as cool. Have a good day.

And not to start anything....but if people are already tired of Black Ops, what makes you think you won't be tired of MW3? There has been nothing changed...it's the same game with updated storylines (that ironically resemble the end of MW2) and the same old graphics.

I'm frankly surprised people haven't been more critical.

MW3 is a continuation of the story in MW2. I'm tired of getting shot around corners and getting shot by bitches in second chance, hopefully MW3 doesn't make the same mistakes Treyarch did with Black Ops and they learn from MW2 also.

The Modern Warfare Series and Black Ops are completely different games imo. I only got Blops because MW2 got flooded with all the hackers... I will still play Blops, but only when I have friends online, otherwise I will be ravaged with lagging and hosting problems.
The online MP experience of Blops has brought a few new game types but fell off the deep end of hosting issues. I know a lot of players that constantly complain about these issues, however, the only thing was can do as consumers and gamers is acknowledge that the problem is there and that the developer has not done anything to support/fix it. As much as it pains me to say this, it is essentially the main turn off of the game. The single player items I could careless about after playing it once through. As for MW2, I have played through the single player multiple times and still enjoy it.
If more of my friends owned MW2 instead of Blops, I would still be playing that hands down. I know this is not the case for many gamers as they like Blops much more, which leads my to think that only part of the community is getting the service they deserve from online play while the rest are doomed to connection issues.

BFBC2 let you open peep holes in the structures you were in and most buildings had access to the roof...of course because virtually everything was destructable, you'd be wise not to stay in the same place anyway... BF3 should allow you to do the same.

BF3 is supposed to have physics where setting off an explosion like an RPG or a grenade in an enclosed room will blow out windows and cause damage from the explosion in the enclosed area. Buildings look realistic and now the cover is supposed to be able to be shot away. It's not in chunks any more like the last game, but actually shot away if it's flimsy enough.

I always enjoyed climbing up to the top of a crane where I could see the whole battlefield and sniping away...well, until the helicopter found me.

BF3 is supposed to have physics where setting off an explosion like an RPG or a grenade in an enclosed room will blow out windows and cause damage from the explosion in the enclosed area.

Other than the damage in the enclosed area, BC2 already does that. If you fire an RPG in an enclosed room, all the windows blow out. Hell, if you're outside and standing near glass when you fire off an RPG, all the glass near you shatters. Can't wait to see how BF3 improves on that

Its not a leak, its the campaign piece that was shown at the E3 Press Conference.
At first when the team enters the base of the stock exchange I was thinking that it was a total rip off of the broadcasting room in MW, but quickly found that they must have taken the use something old and add something original on top to make it new. Ground and aerial combat along with the seamless gameplay in this clip have a stellar balance.

It seems like it has potential, but it looks like zombies, without the zombies, which makes it survival mode?
I agree that people will play this for probably a week and then get tired of it and continue with the online muliplayer.
The only reason that WAW and Black Ops have zombies is because they already have a darker, gritty feel to the game and their multiplayer wasn't as strong as the MW series, imo.

...Activision and EA are intertwined in the Infinity Ward and Respawn Games litigation that focuses on Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. This week, Superior Court judge Elihu Berle ruled that West and Zampella can move forward with their litigation against Activision. The former creative leads at Infinity Ward, who created the Modern Warfare franchise that has now become the biggest game franchise in history, convinced the judge that their claims of fraud are worthy of a trial.

West and Zampella showed enough facts to the judge to move the multi-million lawsuit forward. The two claim that Activision promised them control of the Modern Warfare franchise and increased royalties for Infinity ward on income over $50 million on future games, only to fire them before the payment of over $125 million in royalties was to be made.

As the case progresses, West and Zampella’s attorneys will be able to question Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick. I recently asked Activision Publishing CEO Eric Hirshberg about Infinity Ward’s shake-up and the impact it has had on Modern Warfare 3, but since he wasn’t around at the time of the controversial firing and litigation, he deferred commenting directly on the issue.

“The progress of the lawsuit isn’t that surprising,” said Michael Pachter, video game analyst, Wedbush Morgan Securities. “The court merely decided that West/Zampella showed enough evidence to allow the suit to move forward. Activision had moved for summary judgment, which means that IF everything West/Zampella alleged was true, Activision would win on the law. The judge said ‘no,’ that IF West/Zampella’s claims were true, there was a lawsuit.”

In March, Judge Berle sided with Activision to pursue its countersuit litigation against EA, West and Zampella. Activision claims EA executives “hi-jacked” the two A-List game developers while they were still under contract with Activision. Activision is seeking $400 million in damages for “tortious interference, unfair competition, and breaches of fiduciary duty.”

Meanwhile, West and Zampella are currently developing a new IP, which EA will publish. Activision continues to make billions of dollars off its Call of Duty and Modern Warfare brands. And EA and Activision are going head-to-head again this fall in the virtual warfare space with developer DICE’s Battlefield 3 hitting stores just before Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games’ Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 launches.

“I doubt that the lawsuit will have any impact on sales of Modern Warfare 3 whatsoever,” said Pachter.